Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 27, 2017 | 讻状讟 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 64

Further attempts to support or weaken Rav Dimi are brought but are rejected. 聽When one sells a property, it doesn’t include a well or cistern (if it is not specified as learned previously). 聽But does one have an accessway to get there or does one need to buy an access route? 聽There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis about this. 聽Is their debate based on a well known debate between them: does a seller sell with a “good” eye (includes more in the sale) or a “bad” eye (includes less in the sale)? 聽Or is there a different debate going on here and that debate comes from a different mishna?

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住转诪讗 拽谞讬 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讻讬 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讞砖讬讘

And if it enters your mind to say that when a house is sold without specification, the buyer acquires the depth and the height of the house, then even when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, what of it? Why shouldn鈥檛 the buyer acquire the roof? The Gemara answers: Since the parapet is ten handbreadths high, the roof is significant in its own right, and therefore, unless it is specifically included in the sale, the buyer does not acquire such a roof along with the house.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讬 讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讜 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘讛 讝讬讝讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讘谞讜转 注诇讬讬讛 注诇 讙讘讛 讘讜谞讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear another proof, as Reish Lakish says: That is to say that with regard to one who sells a house to another and says to him: I am selling you this house on the condition that the upper story is mine, the upper story is his. And in the Gemara鈥檚 examination of Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement, we said: With regard to what halakha did Reish Lakish say this? In any case the upper story is his, as when he sold the house it was only the lower story that he sold to the buyer. Rav Zevid says: He said this to teach the halakha that if the seller wishes to extend from the upper story projections over the courtyard, which was included in the sale, he may extend them. Rav Pappa says: He said this to teach the halakha that if this upper story collapses and the seller wishes to build an upper story on top of it to replace it, he may build it.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住转诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 注诇 诪谞转 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛 注诇 诪谞转 讚讗讬 谞驻讬诇 讛讚专 讘谞讬 诇讛

And if it enters your mind to say that when a house is sold without specification, the buyer does not acquire the depth and the height of a house, Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement is puzzling. As why do I need the seller to stipulate that he is selling the house on the condition that the upper story is his when in any event the space above the house remains in the seller鈥檚 possession? The Gemara answers: Stipulating that he is selling the house on the condition that the upper story is his benefits him in that if the upper story collapses, he may rebuild it. Without this stipulation the seller could not rebuild it, even if the sale did not include the depth and the height of the house.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讚讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讘 诇讜 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱

MISHNA: One who sells a house without specification has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut], even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house, as anything that is not part of the house, like pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract or else they remain in the seller鈥檚 possession. And therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach whatever remains his, because he has sold the area of the house along with the house itself, and he no longer has permission to walk there. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain, as this is certainly included in what he has withheld for himself from the sale.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讞讜抓 诪讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 讚专讱

And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you this house apart from the pit and the cistern, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain. Since the seller unnecessarily emphasized that the pit and the cistern are not included in the sale, he presumably intended to reserve for himself the right of access to them.

诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱

If the seller kept the house, but sold the pit and the cistern to another, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain to reach what he has bought. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛讘讜专 讜讗讞讚 讛讚讜转 讘拽专拽注 讗诇讗 砖讛讘讜专 讘讞驻讬专讛 讜讛讚讜转 讘讘谞讬谉 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛讘讜专 讜讗讞讚 讛讚讜转 讘拽专拽注 讗诇讗 砖讛讘讜专 讘讞驻讬专讛 讜讛讚讜转 讘讘谞讬谉

GEMARA: It is related that Ravina once sat and examined the matter and posed a difficulty: A pit is the same as a cistern. Why, then, was it necessary to mention both of them? Rava Tosfa鈥檃 said to Ravina: Come and hear a solution to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: Both a pit and a cistern are dug out in the ground; the difference is only that a pit is constructed through digging alone, while a cistern is subsequently finished on the inside by building masonry walls. It is similarly related that Rav Ashi once sat and posed a difficulty: A pit is the same as a cistern. Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a solution to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: Both a pit and a cistern are dug in the ground, the difference is only that a pit is constructed through digging alone, while a cistern is subsequently finished on the inside by building masonry walls.

讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase such a path. What, is it not about this issue, which will immediately be explained, that Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree?

讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 讜讚拽讗诪专 谞诪讬 讘注诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 诪讛讻讗

As Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, so that whatever is not explicitly excluded from the sale is assumed to be sold, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, so that whatever is not explicitly included in the sale is assumed to be unsold. And perhaps that which is also stated generally: Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that one who sells, sells generously, is derived from here.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖讬转谉 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讬讚专住讜讛讜 讗讞专讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖讬讟讜诇 诪注讜转 讜讬驻专讞 讘讗讜讬专

The Gemara rejects this opinion and asks: From where do you arrive at such a conclusion? Perhaps Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis do not disagree whether, in principle, a person who sells, sells generously or sparingly, but rather their disagreement is limited to this specific case. As Rabbi Akiva holds that a person does not want to spend his money on the purchase of a house and then have others tread upon his property, and therefore he says that the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach his pit. And the Rabbis hold that a person does not want to receive money for the sale of his house and then have to fly through the air in order to reach his pit, and therefore they say that the seller presumably withheld for himself a path to his pit.

讜讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱

Rather, the proof is from the last clause of the mishna, which states: If the seller kept the house but sold the pit and the cistern to another, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain. The tanna鈥檌m seem to disagree as to whether a person who sells, sells generously or sparingly.

讚诇诪讗 讘讛讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讘转专 讚注转讗 讚诇讜拽讞 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘转专 讚注转讗 讚诪讜讻专 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Perhaps they disagree about the following: Rabbi Akiva holds that we follow the intention of the buyer, as we assume that he would not have bought the pit if he would have to fly through the air to get there. And the Rabbis hold that we follow the intention of the seller, as presumably he would not have sold the pit if the buyer had the right to tread upon the seller鈥檚 property to reach it.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讙转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛砖讜讘讱 讘讬谉 讞专讘讬谉 讘讬谉 讬砖讜讘讬谉 讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

Rather, the proof that these tanna鈥檌m disagree whether one who sells, sells generously or sparingly is from this mishna (71a), which teaches: One who sells a field, even if he states that he is selling everything in it to the buyer, has sold neither the cistern, nor the winepress, nor the dovecote, whether it is abandoned or utilized, as these items are not part of the field itself. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach whatever remains his. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专

The Gemara explains the proof: Why do I need this ruling as well, seeing that this case involving the sale of a field appears to be identical to that involving the sale of a house? Rather, is it not teaching us that Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, and therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path to his property, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, and therefore the purchase of such a path is not necessary?

讜讚诇诪讗 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘讬转 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讚讛 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘讬转 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 爪谞讬注讜转讗 讗讘诇 砖讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this opinion: Perhaps the first mishna taught us this dispute with regard to a house, and the later mishna teaches us this dispute with regard to a field. And while this may seem redundant, both rulings are necessary, as had the mishna taught us this halakha only with regard to a house, I would have said that the buyer is particular about people passing through his house, because he desires privacy there. And it is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva says that in the absence of an explicit stipulation, the seller must purchase for himself a path to the pit. But in the case of a field, which is exposed to all, say that the buyer is not concerned about privacy.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 砖讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬 诇讬讛 讚讜讜砖讗 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

And, conversely, had the mishna taught us this halakha only with regard to a field, I would have said that the buyer is particular about people passing through his field, because treading upon the field is detrimental to it. And it is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva says that the seller must purchase for himself a path to the pit. But in the case of a house, which is not adversely affected by treading through it, say that the buyer is not opposed to the seller passing through.

讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱

Rather, the proof that Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree whether one who sells, sells generously or sparingly is from the latter clause of that mishna (71a), which teaches: But if the seller kept the field but sold the cistern and winepress to another person, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain to reach what he has bought, since a seller sells generously. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara explains the proof: Why do I also need this, seeing as this case involving the sale of a pit or a winepress in a field is identical to that involving the sale of a pit or a cistern in a house? Rather, is it not teaching us that Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the latter clauses of these mishnayot that this is so.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree about how the halakha should be decided with regard to this issue. Rav Huna says that Rav says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 64

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住转诪讗 拽谞讬 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讻讬 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讞砖讬讘

And if it enters your mind to say that when a house is sold without specification, the buyer acquires the depth and the height of the house, then even when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, what of it? Why shouldn鈥檛 the buyer acquire the roof? The Gemara answers: Since the parapet is ten handbreadths high, the roof is significant in its own right, and therefore, unless it is specifically included in the sale, the buyer does not acquire such a roof along with the house.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讬 讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讜 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘讛 讝讬讝讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讘谞讜转 注诇讬讬讛 注诇 讙讘讛 讘讜谞讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear another proof, as Reish Lakish says: That is to say that with regard to one who sells a house to another and says to him: I am selling you this house on the condition that the upper story is mine, the upper story is his. And in the Gemara鈥檚 examination of Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement, we said: With regard to what halakha did Reish Lakish say this? In any case the upper story is his, as when he sold the house it was only the lower story that he sold to the buyer. Rav Zevid says: He said this to teach the halakha that if the seller wishes to extend from the upper story projections over the courtyard, which was included in the sale, he may extend them. Rav Pappa says: He said this to teach the halakha that if this upper story collapses and the seller wishes to build an upper story on top of it to replace it, he may build it.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住转诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 注诇 诪谞转 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛 注诇 诪谞转 讚讗讬 谞驻讬诇 讛讚专 讘谞讬 诇讛

And if it enters your mind to say that when a house is sold without specification, the buyer does not acquire the depth and the height of a house, Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement is puzzling. As why do I need the seller to stipulate that he is selling the house on the condition that the upper story is his when in any event the space above the house remains in the seller鈥檚 possession? The Gemara answers: Stipulating that he is selling the house on the condition that the upper story is his benefits him in that if the upper story collapses, he may rebuild it. Without this stipulation the seller could not rebuild it, even if the sale did not include the depth and the height of the house.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讚讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讘 诇讜 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱

MISHNA: One who sells a house without specification has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut], even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house, as anything that is not part of the house, like pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract or else they remain in the seller鈥檚 possession. And therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach whatever remains his, because he has sold the area of the house along with the house itself, and he no longer has permission to walk there. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain, as this is certainly included in what he has withheld for himself from the sale.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讞讜抓 诪讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 讚专讱

And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you this house apart from the pit and the cistern, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain. Since the seller unnecessarily emphasized that the pit and the cistern are not included in the sale, he presumably intended to reserve for himself the right of access to them.

诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱

If the seller kept the house, but sold the pit and the cistern to another, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain to reach what he has bought. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛讘讜专 讜讗讞讚 讛讚讜转 讘拽专拽注 讗诇讗 砖讛讘讜专 讘讞驻讬专讛 讜讛讚讜转 讘讘谞讬谉 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛讘讜专 讜讗讞讚 讛讚讜转 讘拽专拽注 讗诇讗 砖讛讘讜专 讘讞驻讬专讛 讜讛讚讜转 讘讘谞讬谉

GEMARA: It is related that Ravina once sat and examined the matter and posed a difficulty: A pit is the same as a cistern. Why, then, was it necessary to mention both of them? Rava Tosfa鈥檃 said to Ravina: Come and hear a solution to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: Both a pit and a cistern are dug out in the ground; the difference is only that a pit is constructed through digging alone, while a cistern is subsequently finished on the inside by building masonry walls. It is similarly related that Rav Ashi once sat and posed a difficulty: A pit is the same as a cistern. Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a solution to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: Both a pit and a cistern are dug in the ground, the difference is only that a pit is constructed through digging alone, while a cistern is subsequently finished on the inside by building masonry walls.

讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase such a path. What, is it not about this issue, which will immediately be explained, that Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree?

讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 讜讚拽讗诪专 谞诪讬 讘注诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 诪讛讻讗

As Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, so that whatever is not explicitly excluded from the sale is assumed to be sold, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, so that whatever is not explicitly included in the sale is assumed to be unsold. And perhaps that which is also stated generally: Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that one who sells, sells generously, is derived from here.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖讬转谉 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讬讚专住讜讛讜 讗讞专讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖讬讟讜诇 诪注讜转 讜讬驻专讞 讘讗讜讬专

The Gemara rejects this opinion and asks: From where do you arrive at such a conclusion? Perhaps Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis do not disagree whether, in principle, a person who sells, sells generously or sparingly, but rather their disagreement is limited to this specific case. As Rabbi Akiva holds that a person does not want to spend his money on the purchase of a house and then have others tread upon his property, and therefore he says that the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach his pit. And the Rabbis hold that a person does not want to receive money for the sale of his house and then have to fly through the air in order to reach his pit, and therefore they say that the seller presumably withheld for himself a path to his pit.

讜讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱

Rather, the proof is from the last clause of the mishna, which states: If the seller kept the house but sold the pit and the cistern to another, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain. The tanna鈥檌m seem to disagree as to whether a person who sells, sells generously or sparingly.

讚诇诪讗 讘讛讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讘转专 讚注转讗 讚诇讜拽讞 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘转专 讚注转讗 讚诪讜讻专 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Perhaps they disagree about the following: Rabbi Akiva holds that we follow the intention of the buyer, as we assume that he would not have bought the pit if he would have to fly through the air to get there. And the Rabbis hold that we follow the intention of the seller, as presumably he would not have sold the pit if the buyer had the right to tread upon the seller鈥檚 property to reach it.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讙转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛砖讜讘讱 讘讬谉 讞专讘讬谉 讘讬谉 讬砖讜讘讬谉 讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

Rather, the proof that these tanna鈥檌m disagree whether one who sells, sells generously or sparingly is from this mishna (71a), which teaches: One who sells a field, even if he states that he is selling everything in it to the buyer, has sold neither the cistern, nor the winepress, nor the dovecote, whether it is abandoned or utilized, as these items are not part of the field itself. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach whatever remains his. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专

The Gemara explains the proof: Why do I need this ruling as well, seeing that this case involving the sale of a field appears to be identical to that involving the sale of a house? Rather, is it not teaching us that Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, and therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path to his property, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, and therefore the purchase of such a path is not necessary?

讜讚诇诪讗 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘讬转 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讚讛 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘讬转 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 爪谞讬注讜转讗 讗讘诇 砖讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this opinion: Perhaps the first mishna taught us this dispute with regard to a house, and the later mishna teaches us this dispute with regard to a field. And while this may seem redundant, both rulings are necessary, as had the mishna taught us this halakha only with regard to a house, I would have said that the buyer is particular about people passing through his house, because he desires privacy there. And it is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva says that in the absence of an explicit stipulation, the seller must purchase for himself a path to the pit. But in the case of a field, which is exposed to all, say that the buyer is not concerned about privacy.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 砖讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬 诇讬讛 讚讜讜砖讗 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

And, conversely, had the mishna taught us this halakha only with regard to a field, I would have said that the buyer is particular about people passing through his field, because treading upon the field is detrimental to it. And it is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva says that the seller must purchase for himself a path to the pit. But in the case of a house, which is not adversely affected by treading through it, say that the buyer is not opposed to the seller passing through.

讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱

Rather, the proof that Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree whether one who sells, sells generously or sparingly is from the latter clause of that mishna (71a), which teaches: But if the seller kept the field but sold the cistern and winepress to another person, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain to reach what he has bought, since a seller sells generously. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara explains the proof: Why do I also need this, seeing as this case involving the sale of a pit or a winepress in a field is identical to that involving the sale of a pit or a cistern in a house? Rather, is it not teaching us that Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the latter clauses of these mishnayot that this is so.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree about how the halakha should be decided with regard to this issue. Rav Huna says that Rav says:

Scroll To Top